These forms of idiocy exist in all forms of government, and represent the fact that the government is badly in need of a change, not that the system itself is flawed.

Sure. But that isn't what we were talking about, although looking at the flaws of government would be a more productive approach.

The point was the difference, if any, between "property" and "means of production." How does one tell the difference in any practical way, consistently, from one day to the next? But that's an academic point, and as you indicate, the flaws of government would be something more productive to discuss.

Quote:

There is more to it that is not simple jargon. Often the subtleties of an ideology or economic system are what make or break it.

Be that as it may, subtleties of doctrine don't define terms in general usage. What marxists may decry as "capitalism" in their own jargon, has little to do with the general understanding of the term.

Quote:

Do me a favor, and go back and look at my posts, and tell me where I ever complained about such a system. Show me the post, because if it is there, someone has obviously hacked my account.

You could just say, no, that's not what you're advocating. But the answer is clear enough.

Quote:

That's funny. Determining wages is highly dependent on the circumstances.

What's funny is the way people use jargon that they can't even begin to relate to anything real. That's why I called such jargon brainless. And I was right. You wrote the word "exploitation," but you have no real idea what you meant by it. Nobody else knows what it means, either, in terms of anything real. It's just a meaningless word marxists toss around in hopes of some political effect.

Quote:

There are possible systems that could be considered capitalist that do not allow the ownership of private property by the majority of people, ...

Like what? Describe those supposed systems. If landlords have serfs, that's feudalism. What are the other possibilities?

Quote:

Durrrr...... to point out that your definition really is worthless.

Well, durrrr, yourself.... you left out part of it, so you haven't really pointed out anything, then. You apparently overlooked that I wrote "control." I didn't write just "ownership."

What systems other than capitalism do you know, that provide both private ownership and control of property/means of production? A mixed system offers that in part, of course. Anything else?

__________________

~
Support Terry Tremaine, and other white victims of jewish bigotry and hatred.

... The problem is with the person who goes to his broker, and places an order for 1000 shares of stock x. A year later, he goes down to the same broker, and has him sell these stocks. While he owned these stocks, he was making money off of them, and when he sells them, he makes even more money. This money comes from the labor of the workers. ...

You've injected the marxist dishonesty of pretending the workers didn't get paid. That is not true. I am not accusing you, personally, of being dishonest, I am saying that the marxist jargon is dishonest.

You left out the possibility of the stock being sold at a loss. What about that? The workers must be responsible for that, so the loss needs to come out of their pay, right?

If the gains are due to the workers, the losses must also be because of them. So, if there's a loss on a stock, it means the workers didn't really earn what they were paid, and they should be forced at gunpoint, if necessary, to give back their paychecks. Right?

If one has it that the workers get credit for gains, they must also take the blame for losses.

Quote:

He did nothing to earn that money, he just picked the right investment.

Again, that's the dishonest, marxist slander of the employer, that he "didn't do anything." It's mindless political posturing.

And again, if it's all due to the workers, then every time the price of a stock drops, the amount should come directly out of the company workers' paychecks.

Then, what about a worker, a mere employee, who buys a stock, and later sells it at a profit? Who's he exploiting?

SF communists put them in bed with Pelosi, Barney Frank, Marx, Ted Kennedy, Keynes, Schummer, Boxer, Lieberman, and Sambo, not to mention the masses of negroes/beaners who share their philosophy and that infest us and worldwide, it is not hyperbole. It is utter, disgusting, sick truth.

I've already detailed my Sambo parody concerning Capitalist interests, and provided a link to the platform of the British National Party, a party endorsed by one of the very persons that you respect, Dr. David Duke.

I can do no more for now.

In addressing the question of Keynes' philosophy I ask what similarities that you find with the Third Positionist platform?

The capital markets are designed to provide funding for those who are making those businesses work, both the employees of those businesses and the managers, and the owners of the stock. The buying and selling in the markets is designed to provide liquidity for those investments so that one can easily move back and forth between those businesses they wish to own a part of. Day trading, and such, for example, is crucial for provision of liquidity, and the more liquidity, the wider the participation of the public in the markets and in those stocks that are the most liquid. This system, and many have been tried, has been found to provide the most significant funds to the largest number of people who wish to fund a business. Without the frequent trading, which maximizes liquidity, the average person would not be able to participate with any significant amount of their funds.

You are describing how things have to work, within a free market economy, that doesn't say that it is inherently better than a socialist state. These problems could be solved through the socialization of these corporations.

Quote:

I feel that the investor deserves the highest profits their good judgment can yield, as everytime they make an investment, to greater and lesser degrees, it's all at risk. The taking of risk deserves recognition commensurate with the degree of risk. Otherwise, we become a people of mattress stuffers, and there's no incentive to put one's wealth into action, which always results in helping others in various ways.

I think we have a different view of what people "deserve". I simply don't like the system that requires that there be people that make this sort of gamble.

Quote:

We couldn't agree more, in principle. Honesty, transparency, and the enforcement of contracts are crucial to the best functioning of capitalism, and, yes, when those elements are not present, it is always wrong, and usually criminal. When it's not criminal, it ought to be. When capitalism results in something other than a win-win for most, generally it isn't capitalism that failed, but a government charged with enforcement who has failed to discharge their fundamental duty.

We may be arguing semantics here, to some point. The word capitalist was brought into the common vernacular by Marx, who used it to describe what I have been describing, not merely the free market. In this sense, you too are against capitalism, I think, and for the free market economy.

We disagree that socialism can be good for the nation, for the folk, but I think we can put our disagreement on "capitalism" to rest and say that it is mostly semantics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nivelles

Sure. But that isn't what we were talking about, although looking at the flaws of government would be a more productive approach.

The point was the difference, if any, between "property" and "means of production." How does one tell the difference in any practical way, consistently, from one day to the next? But that's an academic point, and as you indicate, the flaws of government would be something more productive to discuss.

Yes. My only point is that all government and economic systems can be taken to ridiculous extremes, which doesn't reflect badly on the system itself.

Quote:

Be that as it may, subtleties of doctrine don't define terms in general usage. What marxists may decry as "capitalism" in their own jargon, has little to do with the general understanding of the term.

True. However, as I said above, the word capitalism was brought into common usage by Marx, and when it is defended today, it is normally defended in all of it's repugnance, it is often defended along with the criminal manipulations that even BC has spoken against.

Quote:

You could just say, no, that's not what you're advocating. But the answer is clear enough.

You're right. I don't advocate that.

Quote:

What's funny is the way people use jargon that they can't even begin to relate to anything real. That's why I called such jargon brainless. And I was right. You wrote the word "exploitation," but you have no real idea what you meant by it. Nobody else knows what it means, either, in terms of anything real. It's just a meaningless word marxists toss around in hopes of some political effect.

My point is that exploitation is not about a number. You could make alot of money, and still be exploited by the stockholders, or you could make very little, while not being exploited. (the reverse is true, obviously.)

Quote:

Like what? Describe those supposed systems. If landlords have serfs, that's feudalism. What are the other possibilities?

Ok, imagine a system similar to fedualism, but not really the same. One class of people is permitted to own property, and they run everything economically. The government allows them to go about it, it is still a free market economy, it could be capitalist, but the majority of peons can't own a thing.

Quote:

Well, durrrr, yourself.... you left out part of it, so you haven't really pointed out anything, then. You apparently overlooked that I wrote "control." I didn't write just "ownership."

I don't think I overlooked it, really.

Quote:

What systems other than capitalism do you know, that provide both private ownership and control of property/means of production? A mixed system offers that in part, of course. Anything else?

You said property at first, that was how you defined it, and you can absolutely have a socialized economy and still have private ownership/control of property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nivelles

You've injected the marxist dishonesty of pretending the workers didn't get paid. That is not true. I am not accusing you, personally, of being dishonest, I am saying that the marxist jargon is dishonest.

You left out the possibility of the stock being sold at a loss. What about that? The workers must be responsible for that, so the loss needs to come out of their pay, right?

If the gains are due to the workers, the losses must also be because of them. So, if there's a loss on a stock, it means the workers didn't really earn what they were paid, and they should be forced at gunpoint, if necessary, to give back their paychecks. Right?

If one has it that the workers get credit for gains, they must also take the blame for losses.

Again, that's the dishonest, marxist slander of the employer, that he "didn't do anything." It's mindless political posturing.

And again, if it's all due to the workers, then every time the price of a stock drops, the amount should come directly out of the company workers' paychecks.

Then, what about a worker, a mere employee, who buys a stock, and later sells it at a profit? Who's he exploiting?

Just because their counterparts lose money at the game doesn't mean that those who are winning at the game aren't exploiting the workers.

Look, again, I'm not really bemoaning the free market economy. My point is twofold:
1, a socialized economy is not bad for the people, for the race, for the nation, it is not a destructive thing for us, and
2 Capitalism, that is the economic system which is focused on the manipulation of capital to the benefit of the wealthy, to the detriment of the workers, is bad for our race. A free market economy can function and be healthy for awhile, but when it turns into this capitalist system that we have now, as Marx described it, it very much is bade for our race.

However:

Bean Counter and Nivelles:

From this point on I would like to refocus our discussions onto the idea of socialism. Our disagreements on Capitalism are part semantics, part misunderstanding. If you don't object, I would like to remain on the subject of Socialism, and how you believe that it is bad for our people.

Let's see... the prospect of Congress applying a "Windfall Tax" to people's 401K, Keough, and other retirement accounts does not bother you. Why? Because you are concerned about your race and not your pocketbook, and you apparently think that people don't need retirement funds anyway, because the "government" should be taking care of them in their dotage. You reason, why, for the love of God, should a person be able to save responsibly for their own needs, when they can depend on their neighbors and the "government" to do it for them? Brilliant logic.

And if it disturbs me and every other person who has retirement accounts, well, we're just engaged in Limbaugh-type greed. Thank you for posting. I knew every communist-socialist wacko would eventually find their way here, and PROVE the very points I'm making. Keep those communist-socialist pearls of wisdom coming.

Why, yes sir, I AM more concerned with the plight of my White brothers and sisters than I am the status of my 'retirement funds'.
It's all about self-sacrifice - material things are meaningless unless put to the service of our Folk.
Mr. BeanCounter, don't you see you go on and on attacking your racial brothers and sisters simply because you do not understand in the least little way the spiritual dimension of our struggle and the value of unquantifiables such as love and compassion? You call us socialists Marxists, why it's laughable, because you share deeply the materialist world-view of Marxism more than anyone I've ever known.

.......
Why only two parties? Why the mass immigration? Why the industrial divestiture? Are the Repub.s gonna save you?...............

.........Is life in a White society perfect? No. But, at least you've got a fighting chance...........

Good questions, very reasonable and excellent points.
Endless arguing about the value of different economic systems may be fun for some, but it's dreary and tedious for me.
The best example we can make to others reading this is to agree that a White society would make the best decisions about it's economic life, that a White society could prosper no matter what economic system it chose.
We have problems of basic survival as a race to address right now!

Let's stick with this - "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children." - the famous '14 words'.

Good questions, very reasonable and excellent points.
Endless arguing about the value of different economic systems may be fun for some, but it's dreary and tedious for me.
The best example we can make to others reading this is to agree that a White society would make the best decisions about it's economic life, that a White society could prosper no matter what economic system it chose.
We have problems of basic survival as a race to address right now!

Let's stick with this - "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children." - the famous '14 words'.

I'll probably remove that post, though I'm glad that you found in it the inspiration of the 14 words. If you told someone that the American political process is significantly influenced by the likes of Soros/ Schwartz only ten short

years ago, they'd tell you that you're just nuts. No way.

We are a people under the tutelage of those who speak in terms of intellectual Dadaism, of those who practice the "obscurantist terrorism" of Derrida, those who commit the economic "deconstruction" of Greenspan, and we cling to

a doublethink beholden to the one, true Ingsoc.

We still seem to be parsing words over "isms" here that are used to contain the arguments that we express into the very schools of thought that have led to our current muddle. The words are defined by them, so why use the terminology at all?

Free trade without international financial capitalists to short sell currencies, and bankrupt nations, is just trade.

Trade may be seen as much like the strivance for life that has existed since the very days of the primordial soup when where one diatom extracted it's energy from the sun, only to have its energy taken by another, ever striving for more complex forms.

As we organise such conceptions of our world into respectable journals and tracts, the story is woven into the national mythos. We find that the writers of that mythos come from the same class of individuals regardless

of political ideology. The untestable nature of their hypotheses is never more testable than that which I have presented, because that is natural law, and not my invention. {1} I find myself only in awe of that natural law that expresses herself as natural

beauty, not economics.

Socialism without banker's socialism, or social democratic rot, can be whatever the conception of your mind's eye makes it.

Otto Strasser wanted National Socialist Germany to form a "common front" with Jewish Bolshevism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PunksNotRed88

Otto Strasser never advocated such a policy... He wanted no such thing.

The Strasser group became a real challenge to the Munich-based Hitler Rosenberg group, especially during Hitler's imprisonment following his abortive putsch of November 1923. After his release from prison, Hitler turned energetically against the Strasser group at the NSDAP Congress of Bamberg in February 1926. He rejected their new draft programme which opposed the anti-Soviet orientation of the Munich group and demanded a common anti-imperialist front with Bolshevik Russia.

In the Fourteen Theses of the German Revolution, published in 1929 as the manifesto of Otto Strasser's faction, he clearly defined the extent of his commitment to socialism. Strasser advocated support of the oppressed masses in the colonies, the national emancipation of India, and friendship with Soviet Russia.

Goebbels edited the Nationalsozialistischen Briefe (NS Letters) and other publications of the Strasser brothers, sharing their view of Soviet Russia as "Germany's natural ally against the devilish temptations and corruption of the West".

Hitler, of course, sensed the danger and challenged Otto Strasser in person in May 1930. During their confrontation, Hitler denounced Strasser's nationalization programme as 'pure Marxism and Bolshevism'. He referred to Strasser as an "intellectual white Jew, totally incapable of organization, a Marxist of the purist ilk." Likewise, Hitler denounced Marxism's levelling egalitarianism, which he felt destroyed the natural principle of inequality and the consequent domination of some individuals (an elite) over others.

The breach which was to end with Strasser's expulsion from the Party seemed inevitable, especially after Hitler defined his own vision of revolution: There is only one possible kind of revolution, and it is not economic or political or social, but racial ... All revolutions - and I have studied them all - have been racial. That is why any alliance with the Soviet Union, a Slav-Tartar body surmounted by a Jewish head, is out of the question...

Following Otto Strasser's expulsion from the National Socialist Party, he set up his own party, the Black Front in an attempt to split the National Socialist Party. In addition to the "Black Front", Strasser at this time headed the Free German Movement outside Germany which sought to enlist the aid of Germans all over the world in bringing about the downfall of National Socialism. Here his lack of anti-Semitism was displayed by his willingness to associate with Jews, such as an exile from Germany named Helmut Hirsch, who would later be executed for an attempted plot on Hitler.

Third Position groups have often looked to Strasserism due to their strong opposition to capitalism. Attempts to reinterpret National Socialism as having a left-wing base have also been heavily influenced by this school of thought, notably through the work of Povl Riis-Knudsen, who produced the Strasser-influenced work National Socialism: A Left-Wing Movement in 1984.